You’ll also note that ACR7, available with Photoshop CS6 beta, is lagging the most in updated camera support. This is based on when we lock down or “bake” the code for each release. Even though ACR7 was only released last week it was “baked” before Lightroom 4.0 and Camera Raw 6.7. Similarly, Lightroom 4.0 was finalized before Camera Raw 6.7. We’ll get Lightroom and Camera Raw in sync soon but in the interim, here’s the latest incremental support list for each product, relative to Camera Raw 6.6 and Lightroom 3.6:

And all these updates would be unecessary if your camera manufacturer embraced the DNG format that Thomas Knoll/Adobe offered to the community. Please lobby your camera manufacturer: it is his fault if your camera is not supported in many converters at day of release. Even the programs made by Canon/Nikon needs to be updated to support their new models. This would not be necessary, and engineers could work on features, rather than camera support.

And all these updates would be unecessary if your camera manufacturer embraced the DNG format that Thomas Knoll/Adobe offered to the community. Please lobby your camera manufacturer: it is his fault if your camera is not supported in many converters at day of release. Even the programs made by Canon/Nikon needs to be updated to support their new models. This would not be necessary, and engineers could work on features, rather than camera support.

How would dng work for people who don't want to own an Adobe product? There must be one or two people out there who shoot RAW but prefer DPP, Capture NX, DxO, Captue One... Would all those Adobe competitors need to incorperate the Adobe file format? Seems like a big ask to me.

well if the camera manufacturer supports DNG then their own software would support DNG as well i guess.

and DNG is not proprietary to adobe software. everyone can support it.

Trevor.Dennis wrote:

How would dng work for people who don't want to own an Adobe product? There must be one or two people out there who shoot RAW but prefer DPP, Capture NX, DxO, Captue One... Would all those Adobe competitors need to incorperate the Adobe file format? Seems like a big ask to me.

i have 4 different camera brands.. it seems not too much to ask that i have to make sense of this format mess.

i think it would make sense for software companys who make RAW converter to have less formats to support.

the problem is that camera manufacturer don´t like to give away some of their influence and possibilities to make changes to the raw format they use.they sure would want to have influence on the DNG development and that would slow down the DNG progress... because of too many cooks.

anyway i think we (the user) would benefit from an ISO standard for digital negativs.

the closest to that is DNG right now (OpenRAW seems to be dead. mostly because of the ignorance of one person).

DNG is based upon TIFF 6.0 and ISO standard TIFF/EP so ist not completely new stuff.

LOL, they clearly don't WANT to support an open format. The camera makers feel that the more things they can do to "lock you in" to their brand, the better. The only software packages outside of their own that they would even acknowledge exist already have development programs that immediately embrace all their proprietary formats, and they don't even have to fund them. Give the policy makers one good, tangible reason to change these current policies... I can't see one.

Even Adobe leverages new camera support into selling new products. You want to just open images from your new camera with minimum fuss? Upgrade to new software (latest release of Photoshop/Lightroom). I'm surprised they've even gone so far as to provide a free DNG converter - I'll bet there are leaders who have lobbied for discontinuing that program.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are entering a new era of high tech corporate greed that you have not seen the likes of yet. Be happy things are as good as they are right now.

Not having Ps and Lr in sync is a real workflow killer! I hope Adobe coordinates from now on and syncs Ps and Lr support of raw files.

Yes it is a pain...but LR and Photoshop release cycles are never together. Close but since LR's first version there has been a few months of non-overlap. LR and ACR with the exception of initial releases are in sync and long as you are running the mosr recnt version of LR & PS with ACR. LR4 is in sync with PS CS6 except that the ACR 6.7 RC is slightly ahead of ACR 7 because of the beta release schedual of CS6 needing more time than ACR 6.7 or the LR4.1 RC.

The root of the problem still comes back to the camera companies who release cameras without really working with 3rd parties nor ahearing to any sort of raw file format standards. People who get brand new cameras are always faced with a disconnect for 3rd party support. When that disconnect interecects with new software releases, the problem gets even worse...but it'll be cleared with in a month or so. In the meantime, the DNG Converter 6.7 will support all the new cameras except the new Fuji X Pro-1–which because of new sensor design might take a while.

i have 4 different camera brands.. it seems not too much to ask that i have to make sense of this format mess.

i think it would make sense for software companys who make RAW converter to have less formats to support.

What the heck has end user convenience got to do with it? The camera companies will still have to develop their proprietary software for folk who don't want to pay for LR or PS, so they are not going to trip over themselves to make life easier for Adobe, or even for the people using their cameras. I have had direct dealings with Canon because their sponsorship for Photographic Society events, and they are incredibly protective of their brand. That seems fair enough to me. Much as I'd like to avoid a different RAW format for every camera, I know it is not going to happen.

I would like to see the support for 5D Mark III in CS6 too. Why couldn't beta camera raw updater update cs6 plugin? How are we expected to test raw file from mark iii in cs6 before the final version is out?

i have 4 different camera brands.. it seems not too much to ask that i have to make sense of this format mess.

i think it would make sense for software companys who make RAW converter to have less formats to support.

What the heck has end user convenience got to do with it? The camera companies will still have to develop their proprietary software for folk who don't want to pay for LR or PS, so they are not going to trip over themselves to make life easier for Adobe, or even for the people using their cameras. I have had direct dealings with Canon because their sponsorship for Photographic Society events, and they are incredibly protective of their brand. That seems fair enough to me. Much as I'd like to avoid a different RAW format for every camera, I know it is not going to happen.

well if we all would think that way no standard would see the light of day and we still had betamax and VHS.. ähhh HD-DVD and BLU-RAY.

if peope don´t say that they are unhappy with the format mess and just accept it.... sure nothing will change.

leica and other camera manufacturers already offer DNG as format.it´s time for nikon and canon to join.

What does this "format" discussion have to do with the original question of this thread?

PECourtejoie wrote:

And all these updates would be unecessary if your camera manufacturer embraced the DNG format that Thomas Knoll/Adobe offered to the community. Please lobby your camera manufacturer: it is his fault if your camera is not supported in many converters at day of release. Even the programs made by Canon/Nikon needs to be updated to support their new models. This would not be necessary, and engineers could work on features, rather than camera support.

the original question was answerd a dozend times already (as a search would have revealed) so we moved on to greener fields.

I do not want to lobby anything. This is no my job. I buy the camera and Adobe software. I want Adobe software to support my camera when I click on the file produced by the camera. That's all. The rest is Adobe's job, not mine. I pay for it and the price is not small. So Adobe should care about it.

I do not want to lobby anything. This is no my job. I buy the camera and Adobe software. I want Adobe software to support my camera when I click on the file produced by the camera. That's all. The rest is Adobe's job, not mine. I pay for it and the price is not small. So Adobe should care about it.

well .. let´s try a bit of logic here.

to reverse engineer the cameras ... adobe must have them first.

so expecting that a new camera is immediately supported by a third party product... well that is not gonna happen with a proprietary RAW format.

A problem for me is that the Camera Raw release that is given as a solution, when installed, actually removes some of the functions that were there in the earlier release of the software. Chromatic distortion correction is gone, for example - since in Photoshop CS 6, they've moved that function to the "Len Correction" filter within Photoshop and taken it away from THAT version of Camera Raw as well. I have now lost the ability to do automatic chromatic aberration correction within Photoshop CS 5.5 . Thanks a lot, guys.

Installing or using LR4.1 RC2 does not add the new defringing to ACR, it only adds the ability to create a TIF or PSD in LR that has had the CA and defringing applied, and that can then be opened in any version of PS.

Just a bit worrisome, too... One would expect a suite of products should be managed and coordinated as a cohesive unit - no matter how big the company, no matter what the history. But what motivates an organization to release one part early, before related software is ready? Then we see updates of that early release come out as beta versions (RCs) several times, so maybe it wasn't really ready... A Marketing experiment?

Whatever happened to just continuing to work on software until it is ready, with commercial quality? Set the engineers to optimizing the parts of it that are already feature-complete. They love doing that! Too much pressure from management to get early sales? Why? Is Adobe afraid of losing market share (to ???) so that they now push to release beta quality software early and in a disjointed way?

I have to say, some parts of Adobe's recent strategy - the public beta of Photoshop CS6, for example - seem very good indeed. Folks are happy to test software clearly marked as "beta" and which doesn't cost them, and you get the added benefit of them really wanting the release when it comes out. We can only hope the released Photoshop product is solid and bug-free as a result of sending the beta out to everyone.

Contrast that to releasing LR apparently too early, taking peoples' money, and having them essentially be paying beta testers. The best Adobe can hope for is that people feel they got their money's worth. The worst? The appearance of lack of quality and lack of coordination.

I don't mean to step on any toes here (and I apologize if I have)... I'm just providing one person's honest assessment of what things look like.

LR4 was obviously rushed out the door so that it would beat the release of the Nikon D800 and Canon 5D3. Anticipating large sales of these cameras, Adobe did this so that all LR3 users would have to pay to be able to edit the new raw files. The worst part is that LR4 doesn't even officially support the 5D3 yet.

LR4 is also incredibly slow. It is not a finished product and should not have been released.

Lr is not part of the creative suite, andI would rather guess that its release schedule is simply set apart of thé créative suite. Previous releases of lightroom did not match the ones of prosumer cameras.